sv3672;n8848560 said:
You are right. Your figures are correct and mine's were wrong but, in any case, I think that the theory still works: TW3 sold more copies than the other two games and most of those copies came from people who didn't know anything about the franchise (in fact, the game was designed for them, CDPR never wanted to satisfty some of its old fans) and they won't be interested in a third expansion regarding plots and characters from TW2 mostly. At the end of the day, even if you are not agree with me, it seems that CDPR does because they didn't even try to do it
Last edited:
As far as I know, and my knowledge is far from 100%, but I feel confident in saying that the original plan was to release Wild Hunt, HoS, and B&W. That was the story, beginning to end, as originally intended. 1-2-3. They also intended to do Free DLC, but I don't know if exactly what that would be was determined from the beginning; I think much of it may have been based on player feedback. NG+ was never supposed to be a thing, and it was added in on top of everything else because of overwhelming player requests.
There was never supposed to be a 3rd DLC (nor, from a story arc perspective, do I think it would work very nicely.) In my opinion, the only directions that the present "The Witcher" cast has left to go is following Ciri as a protagonist (which I would really argue against, as the mystery is a HUGE part of her character), or to "prequel" the story by going back to a period immediately following the Conjunction of the Spheres and exploring how witchers, in general, got their start (which is my hope for the unforeseeable future).
There was never supposed to be a 3rd DLC (nor, from a story arc perspective, do I think it would work very nicely.) In my opinion, the only directions that the present "The Witcher" cast has left to go is following Ciri as a protagonist (which I would really argue against, as the mystery is a HUGE part of her character), or to "prequel" the story by going back to a period immediately following the Conjunction of the Spheres and exploring how witchers, in general, got their start (which is my hope for the unforeseeable future).
SigilFey;n8855890 said:
Yep, this is exactly what I am hoping for come Witcher 4.
SigilFey;n8855890 said:
Overhelming demand by certain type of player. If I have learned something is that the only changes which have been made came from console player's demands. Basically three: NG+, the patch that improved the graphics and little more of Triss. That's all
And speaking of overwhelming demands, there were a few (in fact, a lot) that were never adressed like, for example, the inmmersion problem after the ending or not releasing REDKIT when even a developer posted a trailer about that tool in this forum. And let's be honest, they didn't release the latter because they didn't want to piss off those players who cannot mod the game (consoles). Any change made in TW3 was created to satisfy this section. Even the game was design as a standalone story just for them (I don't know why the called TW3, I suppose the didn't want to scare PC players).
For the record: I'm not trying to show any kind of contempt to console players, I respect them the same as those who play on PC, I'm just saying what happened
Last edited:
Sam2305;n8867820 said:
Those do not seem to be particularly specific to console players (if anything, people who played the previous games might be more likely to want more Triss), maybe the performance optimizations, but users of lower end PCs did benefit from them as well. NG+ is popular on all platforms.
The epilogues of Blood and Wine at the vineyard could be seen as an attempt to address the post-ending issue. We do not know for sure why the REDkit was not released, but I suspect it is not as simple as not wanting to piss off console gamers. They also dropped the idea of licensing the engine and tools to other developers, which could be related.
Sam2305;n8867820 said:
I say the whole console / PC market argument has been invalid for a while. This is coming from someone that has been gaming primarily on PC since the 80's. Back during the early 2000's, it definitely was two separate markets, but as of the Xbox 360 era, pretty much any major hit that could be released on one platform could be released on the other. Market demand for gaming is becoming massively PC. (One look at the revenue generated by Steam alone is proof of that. The surge of businesses based on competitive gaming is another.) The direction of most games is determined not by one platform, but by the demand for specific features that the vast majority of gamers across all platforms prefer.
One of the things I like about CDPR is that they don't compromise their vision in an attempt to generate sales. They lock onto the vision and achieve sales on their own merits. But that doesn't mean they can't also try to give players what they ask for. It's not compromise...it's added bonuses. Hence, NG+. Now, I'll probably never use it, myself. Sounds like you're of the same opinion. Regardless, its existence doesn't get in the way, and it's a wonderful option for so many players that do want it. That's what gaming is to them.
As for changes made to the game, they were made because they were necessary or because the devs thought an alternative worked better. Yes, everything had to work on both PC and consoles. (That's sort of a pre-requisite for developing for both PC and consoles.) But nothing was specifically cut because one platform "didn't want it". The REDkit situation is still largely unknown, but given the tools that were released, my impression is that the engine simply wouldn't cooperate with friendlier tools. It's a powerful but really particular beast. In the end, decisions are made for many reasons, the vast majority of which are completely invisible to people that aren't on the creative end. I am 100% confident in saying no platforms are to blame.
SigilFey;n8869990 said:
That's simply not true. They changed everything to achieve more sales. That was their vision and they contempted their old fans in order to achieved it.
And man, I think you made good points but I have to say that I've been discussing with many people during my two years in this forum, mostly about CDPR's intentions concerning to what were they goals when they were developing and released the game, and (for my disgrace) I've never been wrong: either on assumptions or predictions. I was always the pessimistic one but I was always wright. So, I respect your opinions and your points but I still think that everything that went wrong with TW3 was related with profits and their obsession with console players. Just look how much information they hide in order to prevent any damage on sales (and lying their loyal customers in the process): Iorveth, scoia'tel, inmmersion, dozens of hunged storylines, factions thay weren't even mentioned, characters missing, etc. All of this (in one way or another) was promised but never delivered.
The worst thing is, until this day, not even a fucking explanation (sorry for the word, Moderators if you want eliminated it)
And sorry for the delay, Im not visiting these forums as I used to
Last edited:
You're claiming to be "right" and "wrong", but it's not possible for either of us to claim anything of the kind. Neither one of us is on the production team, the design team, nor the development team. We can only say what has already been said by CDPR themselves. Anything beyond that is our opinion or interpretation of what happened. From everything I have ever seen, from TW1 onward, CDPR creates a vision and fulfills it, often throwing the "status quo" out the window and taking major risks. I was a massive fan of TW1. I really didn't care for TW2 at all outside of the story. I absolutely adored almost everything about TW3. But my preferences don't give me insight into the company's motivations.
Planning something is not "promising it". It means that it was intended, but had to be cut in the end. For the Ivoreth and Scoia'tael thing, I have to agree (hard as it probably was) that it needed to be cut in the best interest of the story arc. There are already a ton of strings that tug at TW3's main plot. I feel adding yet another major factor into it begins to make the dish too complex -- too many flavors. It would have been the same issue that plagued the Spiderman 3 film: so many villains and side-stories and plot branches that it felt like a gigantic, shapeless mess that wanted to go in multiple directions simultaneously. The story in TW3 is: War between Nilfgaard and the North, find Ciri, and find a way to stop the Wild Hunt. Beginning, middle, and end. Plus, it is perfectly believable that the whole "Rights for Non-Humans!" crusade would sort get buried under the the Northern Realms fighting a war between themselves, then immediately being invaded by Nilfgaard, and the entire countryside of Velen left starving to death -- including the Scoia'tael. What could Ivoreth possibly hope to gain by acting up in such a war zone except bringing the wrath of the empire down on them? What would they actually do, in real life? I say, go into hiding, ride out the storm, and pick up their fight once the North was put back in order. I believe, from a purely structural point of view, any inclusion of the overarching Scoia'tael story would feel forced and would distract from the main plot, not add to it.
It's arguable that it could have been included in side-quests, but I don't think that would work, either. The side quests and witcher contracts work because they're like short-stories, with a complete, independent narrative in-and-of themselves. That would have been very clunky to do with the Scoia'tael, considering how established and fleshed out they already were from past titles. To qualify it, the Scoia'tael's presence in Velen would have to be minimized through their own narrative. What would the missions then be about? Fetch and carry quests? Boring. Assassinations or terrorist attacks...? It would be almost impossible to justify Geralt becoming involved. A story about the Scoia'tael fleeing the land? Not sure I would like to see them painted in that light...
The only real option would be to have the Scoia'tael somehow involved in the main plot to find Ciri. Or choosing to take a side in the war. Or fighting the Wild Hunt. All of which, in my opinion, would have been completely contrived motivations that would not have connected to anything from the prior games. Most believably...the Scoia'tael would be keeping their heads down...raiding for supplies...maybe killing a few racist officers here and there...but nothing that Geralt would have any stake in nor make sense for him to be involved with given his situation with Ciri, Nilfgaard, and the North. Their paths...simply wouldn't cross. So...ouch. Cut.
Now, that's my interpretation as a teacher of literature and a writer myself, but that doesn't mean that I know why CDPR made the choice. I simply agree with it for the reasons I've stated above. (But I don't think they made this decision to increase sales. Given the heat they've suffered from players all over, on all platforms, it would probably have generated massive sales to build a DLC surrounding the Scoia'tael. Doesn't seem to me like that was their primary concern, at all.)
Sam2305;n9031340 said:
Planning something is not "promising it". It means that it was intended, but had to be cut in the end. For the Ivoreth and Scoia'tael thing, I have to agree (hard as it probably was) that it needed to be cut in the best interest of the story arc. There are already a ton of strings that tug at TW3's main plot. I feel adding yet another major factor into it begins to make the dish too complex -- too many flavors. It would have been the same issue that plagued the Spiderman 3 film: so many villains and side-stories and plot branches that it felt like a gigantic, shapeless mess that wanted to go in multiple directions simultaneously. The story in TW3 is: War between Nilfgaard and the North, find Ciri, and find a way to stop the Wild Hunt. Beginning, middle, and end. Plus, it is perfectly believable that the whole "Rights for Non-Humans!" crusade would sort get buried under the the Northern Realms fighting a war between themselves, then immediately being invaded by Nilfgaard, and the entire countryside of Velen left starving to death -- including the Scoia'tael. What could Ivoreth possibly hope to gain by acting up in such a war zone except bringing the wrath of the empire down on them? What would they actually do, in real life? I say, go into hiding, ride out the storm, and pick up their fight once the North was put back in order. I believe, from a purely structural point of view, any inclusion of the overarching Scoia'tael story would feel forced and would distract from the main plot, not add to it.
It's arguable that it could have been included in side-quests, but I don't think that would work, either. The side quests and witcher contracts work because they're like short-stories, with a complete, independent narrative in-and-of themselves. That would have been very clunky to do with the Scoia'tael, considering how established and fleshed out they already were from past titles. To qualify it, the Scoia'tael's presence in Velen would have to be minimized through their own narrative. What would the missions then be about? Fetch and carry quests? Boring. Assassinations or terrorist attacks...? It would be almost impossible to justify Geralt becoming involved. A story about the Scoia'tael fleeing the land? Not sure I would like to see them painted in that light...
The only real option would be to have the Scoia'tael somehow involved in the main plot to find Ciri. Or choosing to take a side in the war. Or fighting the Wild Hunt. All of which, in my opinion, would have been completely contrived motivations that would not have connected to anything from the prior games. Most believably...the Scoia'tael would be keeping their heads down...raiding for supplies...maybe killing a few racist officers here and there...but nothing that Geralt would have any stake in nor make sense for him to be involved with given his situation with Ciri, Nilfgaard, and the North. Their paths...simply wouldn't cross. So...ouch. Cut.
Now, that's my interpretation as a teacher of literature and a writer myself, but that doesn't mean that I know why CDPR made the choice. I simply agree with it for the reasons I've stated above. (But I don't think they made this decision to increase sales. Given the heat they've suffered from players all over, on all platforms, it would probably have generated massive sales to build a DLC surrounding the Scoia'tael. Doesn't seem to me like that was their primary concern, at all.
)
Last edited:
SigilFey;n9032380 said:
I know, that's why I said "they promised" in many posts before. They said that Iorveth was going to appear in a public interview. FFS they even posted a trailer about REDKit. They named the game The Witcher 3 making everyone think that it was going to be the end of the storylines we had seen in other games and not the independent one we finally bought without knowing it. Don't you think is a little bit suspicious that the first time players knew about TW3 was an independent story in a interview a month before the releasement?
When you are planning something, you shut up and don't comment anything until yo have a decent idea about what is possible to deliver. That's common sense in every business. Basic. If you speak publicly about something, you are announcing it. And even that doesn't matter because everything I said was promised, not just planned
And all I've mentioned are facts. Not theories. When I said that they only have changed things which were criticized by console players was a fact, check it. I'm not lying and there is no possible option to be wrong on that. We may disagree on why they refused to create a third expansion and, as I said, I respect your view, but what i'm saying is that i'm judging based on what I've seen the past two years and never been wrong so i'm kind of confident on my chances of being right about it
And, one more open question, why are they wasting time and resources on delivering a card game when everyone (at least PC players) asked for more content even if that would have meant to paid for it? Because console players freak out with Gwent (and that is only my view)
Last edited:
I know what was "said". Saying "this is what the game will be about" then needing to change that later on is neither making a promise nor breaking one. That's the creative process. No one ever said, "I promise that Ivoreth will be a prominent character in the TW3. I'm signing and dating it now." CDPR simply shared their vision at the time. Then, (shockingly...) things changed.
Point-in-case: Originally, Bungie announced their new game, Halo, was a real-time strategy game with unprecedented levels of detail (and for someone who was a huge Myth fan, I was already sold).
Then, it was supposed to be this awesome, third-person, Shooter / RTS mash-up where you were given a finite number of troops at the beginning and were free to set your own mission goals across this seamless open world. If your character was killed, control would automatically leap to the next-highest ranking officer. And if you played really well, then this mysterious robot man (the Master Chief) would appear to aid you. Man, it was going to be awesome -- like nothing else!
Then, it was going to be a first-person shooter with a lot of squad tactics and stuff that you could control by issuing orders right from the first-person view.
Then, Microsoft bought Bungie and everything went dark. A few years later we got Halo: Combat Evolved. And I was, like, "Hm??? What is this? Another shooter...really?" But, no...not "just another shooter". It was one of the finest shooters ever made, with one of the most instantly absorbing game worlds ever created, with one of the most iconic player characters to date. Didn't follow the original plan at all. And thank the yods for that, because someone at Bungie recognized that their original ideas were not going to work as well as what Halo became.
THAT's the crux of being able to bring a creative vision to fruition. The project needs a clear sense of itself at all times, even if it means killing a whole lot of darlings along the way. And it never works any other way. Ever. Can't fail to add or remove what's needed simply because "the plan" was different. Stubborn, rigid development is how we wind up with Spiderman 3. Or The Phantom Menace. Or Duke Nukem Forever.
So, The Witcher 3 may have departed from what people were "expecting", but it worked out magnificently for what it actually is. As for "why Gwent?" right now, because there was a huge demand for such a game since TW3 was released. Players really wanted a stand-alone Gwent game. I don't believe it was originally part of "the plan", but I do know that some of the devs were eager to do something like that and jumped at it when they got the opportunity. Plus, it's a wonderful project on a smaller scale that will hopefully generate both popularity for CDPR and revenue for the development of Cyberpunk. And anything that may help Cyberpunk is okay in my book!
) things changed.Point-in-case: Originally, Bungie announced their new game, Halo, was a real-time strategy game with unprecedented levels of detail (and for someone who was a huge Myth fan, I was already sold).
Then, it was supposed to be this awesome, third-person, Shooter / RTS mash-up where you were given a finite number of troops at the beginning and were free to set your own mission goals across this seamless open world. If your character was killed, control would automatically leap to the next-highest ranking officer. And if you played really well, then this mysterious robot man (the Master Chief) would appear to aid you. Man, it was going to be awesome -- like nothing else!
Then, it was going to be a first-person shooter with a lot of squad tactics and stuff that you could control by issuing orders right from the first-person view.
Then, Microsoft bought Bungie and everything went dark. A few years later we got Halo: Combat Evolved. And I was, like, "Hm??? What is this? Another shooter...really?" But, no...not "just another shooter". It was one of the finest shooters ever made, with one of the most instantly absorbing game worlds ever created, with one of the most iconic player characters to date. Didn't follow the original plan at all. And thank the yods for that, because someone at Bungie recognized that their original ideas were not going to work as well as what Halo became.
THAT's the crux of being able to bring a creative vision to fruition. The project needs a clear sense of itself at all times, even if it means killing a whole lot of darlings along the way. And it never works any other way. Ever. Can't fail to add or remove what's needed simply because "the plan" was different. Stubborn, rigid development is how we wind up with Spiderman 3. Or The Phantom Menace. Or Duke Nukem Forever.
So, The Witcher 3 may have departed from what people were "expecting", but it worked out magnificently for what it actually is. As for "why Gwent?" right now, because there was a huge demand for such a game since TW3 was released. Players really wanted a stand-alone Gwent game. I don't believe it was originally part of "the plan", but I do know that some of the devs were eager to do something like that and jumped at it when they got the opportunity. Plus, it's a wonderful project on a smaller scale that will hopefully generate both popularity for CDPR and revenue for the development of Cyberpunk. And anything that may help Cyberpunk is okay in my book!
This discussion is wandering a bit from the topic of a suggestion for a third expansion. However, the REDs created standalone Gwent in response to requests from players, not merely console players, but PC players as well. It wasn't simply one group of console players who asked for it, so it's rather unfair to make accusations here.Sam2305;n9033180 said:
Only the developers can say for certain why they decided on a card game over a third expansion; but I would assume they felt it was a manageable project, which allowed the Studio to explore a new gaming direction, while still adhering to the theme of The Witcher Series for a bit longer. Moreover, although some players would certainly prefer one more expansion to Wild Hunt (myself included), Gwent appeals to quite diverse players -- based on responses we see on the Gwent forums, and elsewhere -- including people who've never played The Witcher Series before, as well as players who've never played collectable card games before. As such, the game helps to expand the audience, and helps keep things varied. Also, as far as I can judge, Gwent requires a smaller development team than The Witcher III did, which allows more of the Team to concentrate their attentions and energies on the development of Cyberpunk2077.
Kinda wonder if the best expansion wouldn't be a re-creation of the first two games. Given how much smaller they were than TW3, all the voice acting is there, new outfits on current character models, the music, etc. But that's just me, in my own little world.
NukeTheMoon;n9192321 said:
Remaking the first two games is indeed a topic that came up before, like in this thread. Although so far CDPR did not show much interest in remakes, perhaps they even said some time ago they have no such plans, but I am not entirely sure about that. Nevertheless, I do like the idea, at least if the new games were faithful to the originals. The voice acting is not entirely there, however, the older games were localized in a different set of languages than Wild Hunt, and some major characters have different voice actors now, or just sound different than they did many years ago.
